Even the most casual observer of the human condition will have noted that the ability to meet a given need at a given time seems to vary inversely with the degree of such need at such time. Thus, a temporary need for a given object is often accompanied by a corresponding inaccessibility, albeit temporary, of the needed object.
It is at least partly in recognition of this cruel irony that there have been developed a variety of devices for storing and dispensing rolls of toilet paper. Each of such devices includes a cabinet in which toilet paper rolls are stacked and a mechanism for bringing the lowermost roll into an operative, accessible position where it may be supported on a spindle for use.
Most of the devices are mounted to a wall, typically for use in public lavatory facilities. U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,690,580 to Jespersen and 4,098,469 to McCarthy show representative devices of this type. It is also known to build such devices into a wall, as may be seen in U.S. Pat. Nos. 2,603,427 to Holmes, 3,130,932 to Pena, and 3,279,715 to Vedvig. The Pena and Holmes devices provide built-in chambers with top and bottom openings while the Vedvig device has a single opening at the bottom.
The prior art devices have all faced a common problem, namely how to keep the stack of reserve rolls from interfering with the roll that is in use. To this end, a variety of stop arrangements have been developed, typically including a restraining member that is swung, slid, bent, or otherwise moved into and out of position. In some devices the restraining member is totally independent of the roll-supporting structure, while in others, such as the Holmes device, the restraining member and the support exhibit a degree of cooperation.
While toilet paper dispensers have found widespread use in public facilities, they are seldom found in private homes. The objection may be in part aesthetic, at least with respect to wall-mounted devices. Expense is another consideration, since the devices tend to be somewhat complex. While built-in devices overcome the aesthetic objection, they are typically rather expensive to install, at least with respect to existing construction.